Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “Sir Thomas More” as Want to Read:
Sir Thomas More
Enlarge cover
Rate this book
Clear rating
Open Preview

Sir Thomas More

2.89  ·  Rating details ·  133 Ratings  ·  15 Reviews
A Play of an unknown date. Supposedly first written by Anthony Munday and Henry Chettle, then heavily revised by Thomas Heywood, William Shakespeare, and Thomas Dekker.
Paperback, 544 pages
Published 2011 by Arden Shakespeare (first published 1592)
More Details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Sir Thomas More, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Sir Thomas More

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30)
filter  |  sort: default (?)  |  Rating Details
Melora
Sep 17, 2017 rated it it was ok  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: shakespeare
I'm not sure how much of this Shakespeare is actually supposed to have written, but it's on my list for the “All of Shakespeare in a Year” challenge, so I read it. And, to be fair, it's not terrible. Beats King Edward III or The Two Gentlemen of Verona, that's for sure. The individual components of the story – the riot and its fall-out, the family scenes, the noble choice of death over moral compromise – are all fine, but they don't seem to hold together in any sort of compelling whole. It's mor ...more
Joseph R.
Jan 08, 2013 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: read-2013
While browsing through one of the Shakespeare bookstores in Stratford-upon-Avon this volume caught my eye. I had never heard that Shakespeare wrote a play on Thomas More. After looking through it at the store it was clear he hadn't written the entire play. He was one of about four other authors and he revised an already prepared text. Loving St. Thomas More as I do, I couldn't resist and bought the book.

The book is part of the Arden Shakespeare series, a scholarly series designed to support both
...more
Carol
Sep 09, 2017 rated it it was ok  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: england, shakespeare, 2017
I gave it two stars with the Goodreads meaning of 'It was Ok.' More is depicted as a highly respected, deeply loved public figure. There were a few elevated speeches and a few funny scenes in between prosaic parts. I admired the serenity that More carried when his fortunes turned downward. Great mean are still musicians, else the world lies; They learn low strains after the notes that rise.

This tickled me: More plays the authoritative figure questioning a man who charged with crime.

MORE. Sirrah
...more
Sammy
Feb 23, 2013 rated it really liked it
Shelves: theatre
A very good, thorough edition of this collaborative play from the 1600s, to which William Shakespeare contributed. The introduction does a good job of exploring both the play as a work, and also the complex situation that led to its creation. The main text has a battle on its hands, since it's a very rare example of a play found in manuscript form, so words are missing, scenes are divided between authors or occasionally between original and censored texts, and so on. Very thoroughly done. And th ...more
Steve Hemmeke
The play Sir Thomas More was not written by Shakespeare, but it seems he added some of his own touches and revisions to it, so it was included in the reading schedule I’m using to read through everything Shakespeare wrote in one year.

This play focuses on More’s wisdom in resolving social and legal problems. He subdues a riot with persuasive words. His family life is peaceful and joyous. And his conscience is clear in not signing the articles the king asks for. The play doesn’t focus on the subst
...more
R.
Jan 29, 2013 rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
For those who don't know, this is a collaborative work, to which Shakespeare only contributed a small amount. Much of the interest is scholarly, as we have the original manuscript in the various handwritings of the collaborators (and the censor), so this sheds considerable light on the nature of theatrical collaboration in Elizabethan theater. The value of this particular edition lies in the enormous introduction, extensive footnotes and numerous appendices.
Humphrey
Feb 20, 2015 rated it did not like it  ·  review of another edition
There's a reason why this play isn't much read. The reason is that it's not very good. The history of the text and the insight it provides into Elizabethan co-writing are fascinating, but the play itself is deeply uneven in quality of writing, sporadic in assemblage of plot, and thin in development of themes.
Ian
Nov 11, 2016 rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
I'm thinking this is more of a two-star read, but I marked a few reasonably good lines and I think the editor, John Jowett, did a great job with the critical materials so I'm giving it three. I wouldn't particularly recommend the play.
David
The Shakespeare contributions are well-written but otherwise not worth your time, mediocre.
Chris
Sep 05, 2011 rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
Pretty good -- much more interesting than Henry 6 (all 3 Parts), although I don't know the history, and ignorance of More's fatal dispute definitely detracts.
Cindy Rollins
This is one of the plays with uncertain attribution. The language was, indeed, unsteady but there were highlights when Thomas More spoke in iambic pentameter. I take those to be Shakespeare's words.
Hayley
Oct 24, 2015 rated it liked it
[3.5 stars]
A very unique play, I enjoyed the era and the beautiful prose. The plot lacked some pace and structure, though.
Rachel (Sfogs)
Well thank goodness someone could stop those stupid rioters!
Rose
Oct 15, 2013 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
I feel like I need to look at the history of the time and who the real Sir Thomas More was before I properly understand what's going on.
Miriam
rated it it was amazing
Jan 06, 2015
Don Mario
rated it liked it
May 29, 2013
Catalina Avram
rated it it was ok
Feb 28, 2015
Veronica
rated it liked it
Mar 28, 2012
Beth
rated it liked it
Aug 06, 2017
Siobhan
rated it liked it
Oct 07, 2014
Marco Amersfoort
rated it liked it
Oct 23, 2012
Hector Jones
rated it it was ok
Oct 21, 2016
Chelsea
rated it did not like it
Oct 21, 2015
Arienette
rated it it was ok
Dec 28, 2013
Amalia
rated it it was ok
Jun 08, 2012
Jessica
rated it did not like it
Dec 20, 2016
Kanokporn Royalist
rated it really liked it
Sep 18, 2013
Alice Kouzmenko
rated it it was ok
Nov 05, 2016
Gerard Whyte
rated it really liked it
Dec 08, 2012
Martha
rated it liked it
Nov 02, 2015
« previous 1 3 4 5 next »
There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »
359036
Anthony Munday (or Monday) (baptized 13 October 156 – 10 August 1633) was an English playwright and miscellaneous writer. The chief interest in Munday for the modern reader lies in his work as one of the chief predecessors of Shakespeare in English dramatic composition, as well as his writings on Robin Hood.
More about Anthony Munday...

Share This Book